Omar Villanueva-Leyva v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OMAR VILLANUEVA-LEYVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72616
Agency No. A200-670-950
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Omar Villanueva-Leyva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72616
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Villanueva-Leyva
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if
membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show
that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”).
Thus, Villanueva-Leyva’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because
Villanueva-Leyva failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Villanueva-Leyva’s contentions that the BIA engaged in improper fact-
finding, failed to consider evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims
fail. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not
write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603
(9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72616
reviewed the record); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
As stated in the court’s December 15, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --